In other words it is not just all-active multi-homing.
It is [all active + all DF] multihoming. However, BUM procedures such as Local
Bias have to be adhered to.
Regards,
Vinayaj
From: BESS [mailto:bess-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dikshit, Saumya
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2021 8:27 PM
To:
+1 for standard compliance on the control plane to indicate [All Active + All
DF].
However, I think local bias is still needed to prevent some scenarios
E.g.:
1) Host1 sends out ARP request for the Firewall.
2) It reaches VTEP-1 over VxLAN from Vtep_Host1. Two options at Vtep_1
a) Proprie
Hi Jorge,
A question related to DAD performed by CEs in the context of Proxy-ND.
1) Say is IP1 allocation to MAC1 on a CE is released by the CE 1 (DHCP
release) and IP1 is assigned to MAC2 (CE2) by DHCP server immediately (common
in DCs).
2) Now CE2 tries to perform DAD before accep
) [mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 9:44 PM
To: Joshi, Vinayak ; The IESG ;
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org; bess-cha...@ietf.org;
bess@ietf.org; Bocci, Matthew (Nokia - GB) ;
jeanmichel.com...@orange.com; Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Di
Jorge,
Thanks, that should help. No need to change the text.
Regards,
Vinayak
From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) [mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2021 11:25 AM
To: Joshi, Vinayak ; The IESG ;
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org; bess-cha
re lets
a different Proxy-ND implementation for DAD NSs).
Regards,
Vinayak
From: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) [mailto:pthub...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:19 PM
To: Joshi, Vinayak ; Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain
View) ; The IESG ;
draft-ietf-bess-evpn-proxy-arp...@ietf.org
Hi all,
RFC 9136 says the following (Section 3.1)
" The RD, Ethernet Tag ID, IP prefix length, and IP prefix are part of
the route key used by BGP to compare routes. The rest of the fields
are not part of the route key.
With VLAN Aware Bundling the Eth Tag ID acts as a distinguisher fo
Thank you Jorge for the clarification.
From: Rabadan, Jorge (Nokia - US/Mountain View) [mailto:jorge.raba...@nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 1:34 PM
To: Joshi, Vinayak ; bess@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Query about Ethernet Tag Id for TYpe-5 routes (RFC 9136)
Hi Vinayak,
RFC9136 does not
From: wang.yub...@zte.com.cn [mailto:wang.yub...@zte.com.cn]
Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 9:56 AM
To: jorge.raba...@nokia.com
Cc: bess@ietf.org; Joshi, Vinayak ; jdr...@juniper.net
Subject: Re: [bess] Query about Ethernet Tag Id for TYpe-5 routes (RFC 9136)
Hi Jorge and Vinayak,
I don't u
Hi all,
Sorry for the spam. My earlier mails to this mailing list flagged for spoofing
for some reason.
Checking if it is fixed now.
Regards,
Vinayak
___
BESS mailing list
BESS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bess
Hi all,
1. For VxLAN encap on the data plane, what should the Originator Router
field in SMET route (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9251#section-9.1)
be set-to?
* Is it VTEP IP? That IP is already available in the next-hop field (RFC
9251 does not talk about not sending ne
Got the answer from the RFC itself.
The behavior should be same as IMET.
Regards,
Vinayak
From: Joshi, Vinayak
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 1:46 PM
To: bess@ietf.org
Subject: Some questions on Originator Router field in EVPN SMET routes
Hi all,
1. For VxLAN encap on the data plane, what
12 matches
Mail list logo
